coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant is a joint stock company based in Braşov.
5.  On 25 August 1994 the applicant brought proceedings against the Transilvania University of Braşov seeking payment by the latter of an amount of money allegedly resulting from a contract they had entered into, which concerned repairs that had to be carried out by the applicant to one of the university’s halls of residence.
6.  On 27 October 1995 the Braşov Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) dismissed the action as premature, considering that the contract had not come to an end.
7.  On 8 February 1996 the Braşov Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) allowed an appeal by the applicant, quashed the previous judgment and sent the case back to the Regional Court for fresh examination. It considered that the first-instance court had come to a decision on the basis of an exception that was inapplicable.
8.  During the retrial, of the nine hearings held between 25 June 1996 and 4 February 1998, two were adjourned at the applicant’s request. This included the hearing of 25 June 1996 when it requested an adjournment to allow the Supreme Court of Justice to decide on its demand to transfer the case to another court, the hearing being fixed for 16 July 1996. The Regional Court adjourned the hearings until 29 October 1996.
According to the applicant, on 16 July 1996 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed its request.
9.  On 11 February 1998 the Regional Court rejected the applicant’s action as being groundless.
10.  On 25 June 1998 the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicant.
11.  On 18 March 1999 the Supreme Court of Justice allowed by a final decision an appeal on points of law by the applicant, quashed the previous judgment and remitted the case to the court of appeal for fresh consideration. It found that one of the judges had also taken part in the proceedings when the first-instance court had given the judgment of 27 October 1995.
12.  During the retrial, on 15 November 1999 the applicant informed the Court of Appeal that it had made a request before the Supreme Court of Justice to have the case transferred to another court, the hearing being fixed for 17 February 2000. The Court of Appeal decided to stay the proceedings and sent the file to the archives. The hearings were resumed on 21 April 2000.
The Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s request.
13.  On 3 May 2000 the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the judgment of 11 February 1998, on the grounds that the applicant’s claims had not been proved.
14.  On 22 June 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice by a final decision rejected as groundless an appeal on points of law by the applicant.
5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Warsaw.
6.  On 6 November 1992 the applicant lodged a claim with the Warsaw Regional Court (Sad Okręgowy) for dissolution of a partnership.
7.  On 6 June 1995 the proceedings were stayed.
8.  On 26 September 1996 the Warsaw Regional Court discontinued the proceedings.
9.  The applicant appealed against this decision.
10.  On an unspecified date the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the decision on the discontinuance of the proceedings.
11.  On 23 July 1997 the Warsaw Regional Court found that it was not competent to deal with the matter and referred the case to the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).
12.  Between 26 February 1998 and 2 September 2002 the court scheduled eight hearings, two of which were adjourned.
13.  On 2 September 2002 the court ordered that an expert report be obtained.
14.  Between 25 November 2002 and June 2003 the expert witness prepared his report.
15.  On 8 April 2004 the proceedings were stayed. The applicant appealed.
16.  On 16 August 2004 the court rejected the applicant’s appeal.
17.  The proceedings are still pending before the Warsaw District Court.
18.  On 14 June 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).
19.  On 29 September 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed his complaint on the ground that on the date of the entry into force of the 2004 Act no undue delays in the court’s conduct could be discerned. The court acknowledged that the proceedings before 2004 had been unreasonably lengthy for various reasons such as the failure of witnesses and lawyers to appear on numerous occasions and the unreasonably long period taken up by the preparation of a report by the expert witness. The court also found some periods of inactivity on the part of the Warsaw District Court (between 18 November 1998 and 24 September 1999 and between 9 December 1999 and 29 October 2001). However, the court stressed that the 2004 Act had entered into force on 17 September 2004 and could not be applied to the proceedings occurring before that date. Having analysed the conduct of the District Court in the period following the entry into force of the 2004 Act, the Regional Court found that the proceedings had been conducted with due diligence and within a reasonable time.
4.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lived in Sopot.
5.  On 8 March 1994 the applicant, together with four relatives, lodged a civil action claiming restitutio in integrum of a mill, the property of their parents, which had been taken by the State in 1948.
6.  Of the twenty-two hearings held between 6 April 1994 and 12 January 1996, five were adjourned at the applicant’s request.
7.  On 9 February 1996 the Craiova Court of First Instance (“the Court of First Instance”) rejected the action, considering that the mill had been nationalised in accordance with the law and that therefore the applicant and his relatives had no right of property.
8.  The applicant and his relatives appealed. Of the twenty-four hearings held between 23 August 1996 and 14 May 1998 one was adjourned at the applicant’s request.
9.  On 21 May 1998 the Dolj Regional Court (“the Regional Court”), taking into account the expert’s report produced during the appeal, dismissed the appeal as being groundless.
10.  On 1 February 1999 the Craiova Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) by a final decision upheld the findings of the lower courts, considering that the nationalisation had been lawful.
11.  The applicant and his relatives made use of extraordinary remedies and on 12 May 1999 the Court of Appeal allowed the application to set aside the final decision of 1 February 1999, quashed the previous judgments and sent the case back for fresh examination. The court noted that under Government Ordinance no. 447/1997 the Ministry of Finance should have been summoned to appear in the proceedings as the State’s representative.
12.  During the retrial, of the twenty-five hearings held between 26 August 1999 and 21 January 2002 two were adjourned at the applicant’s request.
On 8 September 2000 the Court of First Instance held that it had no jurisdiction ratione materiae, considering the case to be within the competence of the Regional Court. On 14 December 2000 the Regional Court also refused to exercise jurisdiction. Following the dispute as to jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal decided on 12 June 2001 that it was the Court of First Instance which had jurisdiction ratione materiae.
13.  On 28 January 2002 the Court of First Instance, having regard to the two experts’ reports and to the witnesses produced during the retrial, upheld in part the action lodged by the applicant and his relatives, considering that the legal requirements for nationalisation had not been fulfilled and therefore the State had no valid title. The court granted restitutio in integrum in respect of the mill and of the appurtenant land.
14.  The defendant party appealed. Of the eleven hearings held between 10 May 2002 and 14 February 2003 none was adjourned as a result of requests by the applicant. A new expert’s report was produced.
15.  On 21 February 2003 the Regional Court allowed the appeal by the defendant and rejected on the merits the action lodged by the applicant and his relatives, considering that the nationalisation had been lawful. That decision was upheld on 7 October 2003 by a final decision of the Court of Appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Obninsk, a town in the Kaluga Region.
5.  As a victim of Chernobyl, the applicant is entitled to social benefits. Considering himself underpaid, he brought four sets of proceedings against the local welfare authority.
6.  On 22 July 2003 the Obninsk Town Court awarded the applicant arrears in respect of health damages and fixed a new amount of periodic payments with their subsequent adjustment for the cost of living. This judgment became binding on 25 September 2003 but was not fully enforced. On the applicant’s request, on 9 February 2006 the Town Court set aside the judgment due to newly-discovered circumstances.
7.  On 1 August 2003 the Town Court fixed a new amount of periodic payments in respect of additional benefits with their subsequent adjustment for the cost of living. This judgment became binding on 25 September 2003 but was not fully enforced. On the applicant’s request, on 14 February 2006 the Town Court set aside the judgment due to newly-discovered circumstances.
8.  On 22 March 2004 the Town Court fixed a new amount of periodic payments in respect of health damages. This judgment became binding on 2 April 2004 but was not fully enforced. On the applicant’s request, on 10 March 2006 the Town Court set aside the judgment due to newly-discovered circumstances.
9.  On 14 April 2004 the Town Court fixed a new amount of periodic payments in respect of additional benefits with their subsequent adjustment for the cost of living. This judgment became binding on 26 April 2004 but was not fully enforced. On the applicant’s request, on 28 March 2006 the Town Court set aside the judgment due to newly-discovered circumstances.
10.  After a rehearing, on 16 May 2006 the Town Court regrouped the four above judgments, awarded the applicant arrears and fixed new amounts of the periodic payments with their subsequent adjustment for the cost of living. This judgment became binding on 21 August 2006.
4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Sochi, a town in the Krasnodar Region.
5.  As an employee of the State-owned Scientifico-industrial Centre for Mountain Horticulture and Industrial Floriculture, the applicant was entitled to a service flat. The flat was not provided, and the applicant sued the Centre.
6.  On 19 July 1993 the Khosta District Court of the Krasnodar Region ordered the Centre to provide the applicant with a flat for a family of four. This judgment became binding on 31 August 1993, but was not immediately enforced.
7.  As in the meantime the Centre had been reorganised, on 10 June 2003 the District Court redirected the enforcement proceedings to the Centre’s successor – Russia’s Academy of Agricultural Sciences.
8.  On the applicant’s request, on 5 September 2003 the District Court changed the mode of enforcement to a cash payment. The court found that the applicant had been entitled to a three-room flat and that such a flat could cost 1,368,000 Russian roubles (RUB). The court relied on a professional evaluation of December 2002 submitted by the applicant.
9.  On 21 January 2004 the writ of enforcement was passed to the Ministry of Finance and on 8 February 2005 the Ministry paid the debt.
10.  On 25 March 2005 a court awarded the applicant RUB 272,000 to compensate his inflationary loss caused by the delayed payment.
11.  On 15 April 2005 the applicant bought a one-room flat for 45,494 US dollars.
4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Obninsk, a town in the Kaluga Region.
5.  As a victim of Chernobyl, the applicant was entitled to benefits. Considering himself underpaid, he sued the local welfare authority.
6.  On 19 March 2004 the Obninsk Town Court awarded the applicant arrears and fixed new amounts of periodic payments. This judgment became binding on 30 March 2004 but was not fully enforced.
7.  On the applicant’s request, on 9 March 2006 the Town Court set the judgment aside due to newly-discovered circumstances.
8.  On 17 April 2006 the Town Court awarded the applicant arrears (including sums outstanding after the judgment of 19 March 2004) and fixed new amounts of periodic benefits.
4.  The applicant is a limited liability company, founded in 2006, with its seat in Budapest.
5.  On 10 August 1992 its predecessor (see paragraph 1 above) requested the Budapest Regional Court to issue an order for payment against another company.
6.  The court ordered the respondent to make a payment of 61,369 Hungarian forints (approximately 250 euros (EUR)). Since the latter contested the order, on 5 April 1993 the proceedings became litigation.
7.  After having held three hearings, the Regional Court found for the plaintiff in April 1995. On appeal, the Supreme Court quashed this decision in October 1996 and remitted the case to the first-instance court.
8.  Between 6 February 1998 and 13 July 2003 the proceedings were stayed, pending the plaintiff’s identifying the respondent’s legal successor. After the latter had finally entered the proceedings, a procedural dispute evolved, at the end of which, apparently in February 2006, the Regional Court noted that, since the original respondent had ceased to exist on 1 April 1993, the proceedings had been interrupted on that date. Thus, all the actions of the parties and all the decisions delivered by the courts after that date were invalid.
9.  Eventually, in November 2006 the Regional Court ordered the resumption of the proceedings and transferred the case to the Pest Central District Court, which had acquired jurisdiction to hear the case due to an amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure.
10.  On 20 February 2007 the District Court allowed the applicant company to replace the original plaintiff.
11.  On 5 December 2007 the District Court found for the applicant company. None of the parties appealed and the decision became final on 22 January 2008.
4.  The applicants were born in 1960 and 1928 respectively and live in Budapest.
5.  On 8 November 1996 the applicants brought an action against Mr M., claiming moral damages for the latter’s insulting behaviour. The Dombóvár District Court initially suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of the criminal case being conducted against the respondent. A first judgment was eventually given on 15 April 1998 but was quashed on appeal on 27 May 1999. Subsequently, the case was assigned to the Szekszárd District Court. This court joined two further cases pending between the same parties to the principal action.
6.  The joint proceedings later continued before the Buda Surroundings District Court. This court held numerous hearings between 24 January 2002 and 27 March 2007. Although the applicants did not attend several hearings, it appears that they requested the court to continue with their case in their absence. Ultimately, the District Court found for the applicants on 31 May 2007.
7.  On 10 June 1999 Mr Kalmár brought an official liability action against the Attorney General’s Office. The case was assigned to the Pest County Regional Court. On 17 September 2000 this court adjudicated some of the plaintiff’s claims and disjoined others, the examination of which was suspended pending the outcome of another case. In the latter connection, the proceedings were resumed on 19 December 2001. However, no hearing took place until 4 October 2006. Further hearings took place on 14 March 2007 and 14 April 2008. According to the information in the case file, this case is still pending.
8.  In 2001 Mr Kalmár was found guilty of making false accusations. On 30 July 2003 he requested a retrial. According to the information in the case file, that request is still pending.
9.  On 5 August 2004 Ms J. filed a criminal report against Mr Kalmár, accusing him of libel. A hearing took place on 20 March 2006, at which Mr Kalmár complained that he had not been properly informed of the charges against him. His motion for bias against the police authority dealing with the case was dismissed, and his ensuing complaint, filed on 3 December 2004, does not appear to have been answered.
10.  On 17 May 2006 Mr Kalmár challenged the Budapest XX/XXI/XXIII District Court for bias. His motion was rejected on 2 June 2006. According to the information in the case file, these proceedings are still pending.
4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Budapest.
5.  In the context of complications suffered from plastic surgery, on 13 February 1992 the applicant brought an action in compensation against a hospital.
6.  After having held several hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert, on 11 October 1994 the Pest Central District Court gave an interim judgment, accepting the applicant’s entitlement to compensation. On appeal, on 7 November 1995 the Budapest Regional Court upheld this decision.
7.  Subsequently the proceedings continued before the District Court. In January 1996 the applicant extended her claims. After having held several hearings and obtained an expert opinion, on 27 January 2000 the District Court partly found for the applicant. On 24 January 2001 the Regional Court amended this decision.
8.  On 25 June 2003 the Supreme Court quashed these decisions and remitted the case to the first-instance court.
9.  After several hearings in the resumed first-instance proceedings, on 31 October 2006 the District Court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant 1.9 million Hungarian forints (HUF) in compensation plus accrued interest, together with a monthly allowance in arrears and pro futuro.
10.  On 19 February 2008 the Regional Court upheld this judgment.
11.  On 6 May 2008 the first-instance judgment was rectified.
4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Zakroczym.
5.  On 4 March 1986 the applicant’s mother lodged with the Nowy Dwór Mazowiecki District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a motion for the dissolution of a co-ownership and division of an inheritance. The estate comprised, inter alia, a farm and plots of land located in Zakroczym. The applicant and her brother were also involved in the proceedings as parties.
6.  Between 4 March 1986 and 3 April 1992 the court scheduled fifteen hearings and appointed three experts. In the meantime, the applicant lodged several complaints about the unreasonable length of the proceedings, to no avail.
7.  On 3 April 1992 the court stayed the proceedings. They were resumed on 24 July 1995.
8.  Between 16 August 1995 and 14 May 2002 the court scheduled twenty-three hearings, thirteen of which were adjourned for various reasons, for instance the need to obtain additional evidence, in particular several experts’ reports. Three hearings were adjourned at the applicant’s request.
9.  On 14 May 2002 the court closed the trial and adjourned delivery of a decision. On 28 May 2002 the same court re-opened the proceedings and ordered that additional evidence be obtained, including experts’ reports.
10.  On 17 November 2002 the applicant’s brother died and the proceedings were stayed. They were resumed on an unspecified date in 2003.
11.  Between 20 February 2003 and 1 June 2007 the court ordered four expert reports to be obtained and scheduled sixteen hearings, five of which were adjourned.
12.  The proceedings are pending before the first-instance court.
13.  On 5 September 2005 the applicant lodged with the Warszawa Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) a complaint under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).
14.  The applicant sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Nowy Dwór Mazowiecki District Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. EUR 2,500).
15.  On 7 October 2005 the Warszawa Regional Court dismissed her complaint on the ground that on the date of the entry into force of the 2004 Act no undue delays in the proceedings could be discerned. Although the court acknowledged in general that the proceedings before 2004 had been unreasonably lengthy, it did not examine the course of the proceedings prior to the date of the entry into force of the 2004 Act. It stressed that the provisions of the 2004 Act could be applied only to proceedings pending after 17 September 2004.
5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Pruszcz Gdański.
6.  On 8 June 2004 he was arrested by the police.
7.  On 9 June 2004 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) decided to place the applicant in pre-trial detention as there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that he had been dealing in drugs. The court also cited the risk that the applicant would go into hiding, in view of the likelihood of a heavy sentence.
8.  On 2 September and 4 November 2004 the applicant’s detention was extended. In addition to the two grounds given previously, the District Court cited the need to ensure the proper conduct of the investigation.
9.  On 26 October 2004 the applicant was indicted before the Gdańsk District Court. His pre-trial detention was subsequently extended.
10.  As the length of the applicant’s detention had reached the statutory time‑limit of two years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego), the District Court made a series of applications to the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) for the applicant’s detention to be extended beyond that term. On 18 May and 17 August 2006 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal granted the applications and extended his detention, citing the reasonable suspicion against the applicant and the length of the sentence that was likely to be imposed. The Court also considered that the District Court could not be held responsible for not having completed the trial as there had been objective procedural difficulties in hearing all the witnesses.
11.  The first hearing was held on 21 January 2005. Subsequently, hearings were held at regular intervals.
12.  The applicant’s applications for release from detention and his appeals against the decisions extending the preventive measure were dismissed.
13.  On 17 October 2006 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention until 20 November 2006. It cited the reasonable suspicion against the applicant and found that detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings given the likelihood of a heavy sentence.
14.  The applicant’s detention on remand was not extended beyond that date and on 20 November 2006 he was released.
15.  On 4 August 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). On 3 November 2006 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed the complaint, finding that the trial had been conducted speedily and with no periods of inactivity.
16.  The proceedings are still pending before the trial court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Budaörs.
5.  On 8 May 1998 the applicants’ neighbours brought an action against her and other respondents, claiming adverse possession of a right of way on their land.
6.  Between 1 May 1999 and 5 February 2001 the proceedings were interrupted because of the death of a plaintiff.
7.  Between 18 May 2001 and 16 March 2005 the Budaörs District Court held several hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert.
8.  Since 21 April 2005 the proceedings have been interrupted because one of the respondents died, his successor did not join the proceedings voluntarily and the plaintiffs failed to apply for the successor to be made a party to the proceedings.
9.  According to the information in the case file, the case is still pending before the first-instance court.